CHEMBUR KARNATAKA SANGHA THR ITS REPORTING TRUSTEEversusRANJANKUMAR R AMIN

2026:BHC-AS:37577

                                                                          23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.11511 OF 2026

            Chembur Karnataka Sangha                             ...   Petitioner
                 versus
            Ranjankumar R. Amin                                  …     Respondent

            Mr. Faran Khan with Mr. Santosh Salekar, for Petitioner.
            Mr. Anilkumar R. Amin, for Respondent.
            Mr. H.K.Sudhakara, reporting Trustee, present.

                                CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :       9 SEPTEMBER 2026

            ORDER :

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the

            legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 6 January 2026 passed

            by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai in Revision Application

            No.238 of 2024, whereby the revision preferred by the Petitioner against an

            order dated 29 August 2024 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner,

            Mumbai, on an application (Exh.16), thereby allowing the intervention

            application under Section 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950,

            (‘the Trusts Act, 1950), came to be rejected.

            3.      The Petitioner is a public charitable trust registered under the Trusts

            Act, 1950. The Respondent was the managing committee member and the

            secretary of the Petitioner trust. A Change Report for the year 2019-20, being


            SSP                                                                     1/5
                                                          23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc

Change Report No.ACC/HO/3271 /2021, was filed by the Petitioner.

Respondent filed an application for intervention in the said Change Report.

The Petitioner claimed that, the Respondent was initially suspended from the

membership of the trust and, subsequently the membership of the

Respondent      was terminated   by a resolution passed in AGM dated 3

November 2019.

4.    By an order dated 29 August 2024, the learned Assistant Charity

Commissioner allowed the intervention application observing, inter alia, that

the Respondent was a member of the trust and the alleged termination of the

membership of the Respondent was a disputed fact and, thus, the

Respondent appeared to be a person having interest in the trust.

5.    Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a revision before the Charity

Commissioner.      By the impugned order, the         learned Joint Charity

Commissioner rejected the revision application finding no jurisdictional error

or material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Assistant

Charity Commissioner.

6.    Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the

authorities were in error in placing burden on the Petitioner – trust to show

that the membership of the Respondent was terminated. Since the

termination of the membership of the Respondent has not been set aside by

any authority, the mere fact that the Respondent disputed termination of his


SSP                                                                2/5
                                                            23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc

membership of the trust, cannot be a ground to hold that the Respondent is a

person having interet in the trust.

7.       Mr. Khan further submitted that, in earlier proceedings, especially

Revision Application No.90 of 2021 in relation to the Change Report for the

year 2018-19, the claim of the Respondent that he was entitled to object to

the change, was rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner.            Thus, the

Respondent could not have been permitted to intervene in the Change Report

proceedings for the succeeding year.

8.       Indisputably, the Respondent was not only a member of the Petitioner

Trust, but also a member of its Managing Committee and a Secretary of the

trust.    The case of cession of interest of the Respondent in the trust is

premised on the purported termination of the membership of the Respondent

by the Petitioner.    The factum of termination of the membership of the

Respondent was put in contest. The authorities below were, thus, justified in

holding that the Respondent cannot be said to be a person who had no

interest in the trust. The definition of the person having interest in the trust

contained in Section 2(10) of the Trusts Act, 1950, is not of restrictive nature

as under sub-section 2(1) of the Act, the definition of “the person having

interest” is inclusive. It would be contextually relevant to note that the word,

“includes” in section 2(10) came to be substituted for the word, “means” by

Bombay 28 of 1953. It is trite, the use of the word, “includes” in a definition


SSP                                                                 3/5
                                                               23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc

gives the term an expansive meaning. In contrast the legislature uses the

word, “means” to give a precise and definite meaning. In substituting the

word, “includes” for “means”, the legislative intention of expanding the scope

of the term, “person having interest” becomes explicitly clear. An inclusive

definition, as is trite, covers in its fold the matters which are not specifically

enumerated in the said definition.

9.    The object of conferment of locus on “person having interest” becomes

clear if the nature of the authority of the trustees is appreciated. As noted

above, the property of the trust vests in the trustees for the benefit of

beneficiary or for the discharge of the object of the trust. It is quite

conceivable that the trustees may discharge their duties in furtherance of the

object of the trust or in derogation thereof. In a given case, the trustees may

not be available or may have become defunct or rendered themselves

disabled or even might be acting against the interest of the trust. Therefore,

the persons who have an abiding interest in the affairs of the trust have been

conferred the locus to seek remedies and participate in the proceeding, so

that the object of the trust and, ultimately, public interest are not defeated.

10.   In the case at hand, the Respondent who was indisputably a member

and the Secretary of the Petitioner Trust, cannot be said to be ceased to have

interest in the trust for the reason that the Petitioner alleges that the

membership of the Respondent stood terminated, which fact is disputed by


SSP                                                                    4/5
                                                                                    23 wp 11511 of 2026.doc

                      the Respondent. Whether, in the facts of the case, there is any substance in

                      the objection raised by the Respondent to the Change Report is a matter of

                      merit. Thus, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, this court does not find

                      any justifiable reason to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities

                      under the Trusts Act, 1950.

                      11.      The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed.




                                                                            ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                   5/5



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/09/2026 19:37:36